The citizens of the United States of America have
soundly rejected fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, anarchy, and monarchy ever since the country was founded. The United States has always
been a Representative Democracy, and it has historically supported free markets; but particularly since the Great Depression of the 1930's, American tax
payers have funded government activities which were previously left to the private sector (individuals, businesses, charities and other non-governmental
organizations). There is an ongoing argument between those who approve of these government services (liberals, progressives, or
the Left) and those who do not (conservatives or the Right). These adversaries nonetheless agree that there has long been
much corruption and criminality in government and business. They also seem to agree that a tax payer funded safety net should exist for the poor
and the disabled.

People on the two sides of this argument see
things very differently. Those who believe in more government services than were originally contemplated tend to see business as a force in need
of containment, while those who believe in a limited federal government tend to fear that additional government services may diminish incentives
and intrude on the rights of the individual. Starting from those distinct views, they now advise very different economic policies. For many decades,
the two camps have correctly accusing each other of some severe transgressions. Young people tend to identify with the beliefs held by their family
and friends. Each side tends to regard the point of view of the other side as incomprehensible and wrong headed.

If both sides were better informed, there would
be virtually no chance that America could fall into communism, oligarchy or ruinous debt; and the risk of each is far from negligible. For this reason,
both sides need to honestly think though again the concerns that they have so far discounted.

Effective Safety Net

The Left has a sincere and heartfelt concern for
the downtrodden that cannot be dismissed as a mere ploy to inspire more government control. On this point, the Left can obtain the trust of the Right
by agreeing to phase out government payments to individuals who are not poor or disabled. The Right can gain the trust of the Left by agreeing to
measures that would make abject poverty, homelessness, and hunger impossible while also providing medical care to the poor. Homelessness would
disappear. Government assistance of all kinds to wealthy and middle-income households would also disappear. The transition need not be so sudden
that it disrupts the plans of those who are nearing retirement or who are already retired. In an otherwise free-market economy, there is no question
that taxpayers could afford to provide a fully effective safety net. We would no longer need to endure the shame of American city streets being occupied
by people who cannot afford to live indoors.

Effective Enforcement

If the chances of getting caught for corruption and
crime are very low and the rewards are very high, there will be a lot of corruption and crime. Finger pointing across the great ideological divide is not
helping the problem. The Right needs to understand that there are criminal business people and the Left needs to understand that government ownership
of the means of production is not a cure. Free enterprise cannot be saved from communism for long without effective law enforcement concerning political
and financial matters. Here is a particularly important book on the subject:

Every effort has been made to keep the political
process under the control of the two major parties. Since at least the Great Depression, these two parties have cooperated to enact laws that keep the
cost of getting on the ballot very high for other parties. This limits choice and it is an example of political corruption. These books explain the
situation:

Politicians are likely to be slower than voters to
support the Effective Safety Net policy because they often attempt to stay in office for many years, and thereby aquire motives that are not identical
to those of their constituents. They learn to stay in office by promising benefits to voters. This creates huge debt and can only be remedied by term
limits. If a politician does not want to interrupt his or her career to lend a hand in fixing the country's problems, but instead wants to make a career of
high political office, the voters should not approve. If a public servant is inclined to spend 40 years in public service, it would be far better to spend
those years in a variety of positions (local, state and federal) rather than attempting to spend 40 years in the Congress. This would be better for the
country. You might consider assisting this cause through and organization like
U.S. Term Limits.

Campaign Financing

The extreme cost of political campaigns has been
a serious obstacle to the goal of having a Congress comprised mainly of citizen legislators who willingly go back to their private career after only a few
years in office. Who would go to the trouble of becoming a public figure and raising millions of dollars to win a congressional election, only to quit that
job many years before retirement? That's the kind of thing you might do as the mayor of a town of 2000 people. Incentives and expectations must be
realistic. The cost in both effort and dollars of such a campaign is so high that very few indeed would leave office without a fight. The fact that the
Congress has not passed a law that limits the number of terms an individual may occupy a given office cannot be much of a mystery. As a result of this
high cost, our legislators are very often selected from people who are influential or wealthy at the outset. How much different would they be as a group
if getting elected to an office was as merit-based and practicable as going to college for a semester or building a garage? The cost must be dramatically
reduced and the process must be made far more open.

TV, Cable TV, email, Internet websites and the
latest generation of hand-held devices may help change elections considerably because advertising can pay for the broadcasting of debates and debates
can the basis for political campaigns.

Contact

This article is a personal opinion. Please feel free to
write to me directly for more information or to make suggestions or comments. My email address is
jim@futurebeacon.com. You can also go to my contact page to get my full contact
information. Suggestions, questions, additional information, critiques, and opposing opinions are very welcome.